From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Bad network performance over 2Gbps Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:02:08 -0700 Message-ID: <480CF2C0.9050208@hp.com> References: <480CC3D8.3040700@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kok@vger.kernel.org, Auke , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Anton Titov , Chris Snook , "H. Willstrand" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jesse Brandeburg , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton To: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Bodo Eggert wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote: >>Be it kernel or user space, for consistent benchmark results it needs to be >>able to be turned-off without turning the code. That leaves me in agreement >>with Stephen that if it must exist, the user space one would be preferable. >>It can be easily terminated with extreme prejudice. > > > I agree that having a full-featured userspace balancer daemon with lots of > intelligence will be theoretically better, but if you can have a simple > daemon doing OK on many machines for less than the userspace daemon's > kernel stack, why not? Perhaps my judgement is too colored by benchmark(et)ing, and desires to have repeatable results on things like neperf, but I very much like to know where my interrupts are going and don't like them moving around. That is why I am not particularly fond of either flavor of irq balancing. That being the case, whatever is out there aught to be able to be disabled on a running system without having to roll bits or reboot. rick jones